Revealed: the richer sex

The cover story of the new Spectator is one of the most startling we have run for a while. Last year, Liza Mundy wrote a book called The Richer Sex showing how women would become the biggest earners in most American households within a generation. She has now studied the British data and found that the trend here is even more advanced. It’s not about equality. Women born after 1985 have not just ‘caught up’ with men, but are overtaking them. But while we Brits tend to joke about this, and talk about being ‘pursewhipped,’ the Americans are taking it seriously and understanding how it is changing society forever.

This means that my two sons can expect to grow up in a Britain very unlike the one I grew up in. They will see a country where the majority of doctors are women, where being female means you will do better at school and are more likely to go to university. Anyone born after 1985 will have seen a world where girls do better and now, for the first time, a male pay gap has opened up. In their 22-30s, women are paid more. This is the natural and inevitable consequence of the era where they are better-educated. This is not just economic.

This will even affect sex lives: Liza Mundy interviewed a woman who earns three times more than her husband. He told her that, after she got a bonus, her husband would watch TV instead of join her in bed. The evidence is more than anecdotal: there are already studies showing that men out-earned by their wives are more likely to take medicine for erectile dysfunction. This could be a generational thing: tomorrow’s men may be easier about earning less than their partner.

Liza’s insight is that neither men nor women grew up preparing for the era they now find themselves in, which is causing needless unhappiness. The UK economic model (and appallingly expensive childcare system) is geared towards one-earner households (unlike the Scandinavian, designed to have two-patent earners). Women worry about ‘marrying down’ and they shouldn’t. Men should similarly lose these hangups. There was a whole bunch of data and studies used for Liza’s cover story, not all of which we could fit into her excellent piece. But here’s some more.

It all started when girls started to do better than boys at school: 1985. Ever since then a pronounced gap has emerged in exam attainment. You know things are bad when, on the rare year that boys do 0.1pc better in one specific metric (A* at A-Level) it becomes news. The everyday story is about the girls doing better than the boys in school, in university and (ergo) in life. As Boris once said, when this generation of women reach the peak of their careers British economy will have been feminised – and utterly transformed.

In 1997, the average female employee earned 17 per cent less than the average male one. That gap has now fallen to 10.5 per cent. But to see what will happen in the future, look at the young: the first generation of women to graduate in an era where they routinely did better at school than boys. The under-30s actually earn 2.5 per cent more than their male counterparts.

The overall employment rate disguises a staggering difference in the genders. Men have signed off from the labour market, as women have rushed on.

Even factoring in the older generation, women now account for 46 per cent of the total UK workforce, up from 37 per cent in 1972.

In 1972, just 5 per cent of men were neither in work nor looking for work. In 2012, it’s 16 per cent. For women, it’s fallen from 44 per cent to 29 per cent.

And there is certainly a gender bias in our universities. A full 58 per cent of the undergraduate degrees in 2010/11 were obtained by women, including:

69 per cent of language degrees;

62 per cent of law degrees;

60 per cent of medicine & dentistry degrees;

and 51 per cent of business & administration degrees.

Women, being richer, are taking longer to build their careers and find the right man. The average age of first-time brides has risen sharply over the last thirty years, from 23 in 1979 to 30 in 2009. The Duchess of Cornwall was unfairly called “waity Katie” when she married age 29 – but she was reflecting a trend in the modern British women. It’s a sign of the times that she will be the first university-educated Queen.

Kindle

More Spectator for less. Subscribe and receive 12 issues delivered for just £12, with full web and app access. Join us now.

The largest percentage of high earning women are in jobs that are reliant on public money and charities, as the public sector gets cut back to what it was and should be wage rates will go down, state schools have been feminized and the standards are dropping like a stone, standards in the NHS are abysmal and the public services leave a lot to be desired, three cheers for all who contribute to these standards.

Asmodeus

Like everything else all part of the dying West syndrome only the people in favour of it don’t realise that their culture is on the way out and them with it eventually. However for the time being they can enjoy themselves with their equality and diversity agendas much good may it do them

D Short

This kind of fudgy nonsense belongs in the Daily Mail. And how can you compare ‘rich’/’wealthy’ with income. In statistics, one is a stock and one is a flow. The Spectator in pre-Brillo Pad days used to have a column dedicated to misunderstandings about statistics.

William Blakes Ghost

Is it a coincidence that the decline and bankruptcy of the British nation has coincided with the rise of women? Let me just provide two pieces of evidence. Louise Mensch and Harriet Harman. I rest my case m’lud.

Until men are treated equally under the law things will not improve. Until the equality fascists with their misandry and sexist bigotry are brought to heal things will not improve.

More evidence that the inheritance of this female generation will be little marriage and few children. Female graduate fertility rates are collapsing, which is why there have been two media campaigns by the medical establishment on women ‘not leaving it too late’ to reproduce. Thing is, there aren’t enough graduate men around and the average bossy/arsey Brit woman is competing against less bolshy rivals from overseas. Friends are marrying foreign women.

I could not agree more that were women have taken over, they are marked by their box-ticking mentality and rule-following. Both Labour and the Liberals are deeply feminised: obsessed with rules, regulations and ‘putting a stop to things’ – mostly bright blokes galloping off in new directions.

Indeed, a large chunk of the pre-crunch FSA was female, sending out forms for bankers to tick the boxes. Somewhat different to the old boy’s network, which Brown dismantled but also managed, in 1991, to sell the Midland Bank before anyone knew it was bankrupt.

Many banks – the RBS for one – used many overpaid females in risk assessment and see where the bland people-pleasers got us? Not many whistles blown by the girls there.

I have also clashed with female lawyers who showed the classic traits of having plenty of tactics but no strategy. On which subject, the feminist lobby is now running up against the issue of big female pension funds, which they are straining to stop being divided in a divorce.

I wouldn’t be worried about a wife that earned more. I would be more worried about the current generation who have – to a women and across the class divide – abandoned the kitchen. It seems having a bloke who does all the cooking is both a badge of pride and a demand.

James102

So high academic ability females are removing themselves from
the gene pool. An interesting evolutionary experiment.

Kevin

There does not appear to be much satisfactory analysis in this posting. Britain has something of a reputation for not making anything any more. The public sector is accused of being overpaid. There is much scepticism about how much of the financial sector’s profits are derived from mutually beneficial trade. To focus on the fact that the money that is floating around appears to be unevenly distributed between the sexes on average appears remarkably detached from the problem of general economic decline.

The associated picture is also unnecessarily obnoxious. Why would that picture be any more admirable than Harry Enfield’s “Loadsamoney” character?

Sarah

Who’d have thunk it? Stop holding women back by stopping them go to school or university, preventing them from getting jobs or being promoted, paying them less, stopping them from voting, terrorising them out of making their own decisions or speaking up in public and they outstrip men. And what’s the reaction by said men to their extraordinary achievements within a few decades? “Well done, you overcame all the hurdles we put in your way.”? “Great news, you managed it even with one hand tied behind your back.”?, “Fancy that, you got top careers without the aid of our boys’ networks and nepotism”, “Oh dear, I guess this means we will have to stop coasting and up our game.”?, “Maybe this means they aren’t inferior to us after all and we only won because we cheated”? No of course not, their reaction is “Society is completely feminised, it’s not fair, we’re all equal you know, IQ tests don’t mean anything anyway, doing well in business isn’t difficult, religion and politics don’t matter these days, emotional intelligence is superfluous, they must be using nepotism.” Who knew men were such babies? Rhetorical question obviously, we all knew.

Eddie

Sarah, you are on twisting manhating obsessive – but very amusing too: a sort of mad feminist version of a wheeling drunk wetting his pants and giggling.
Here is a fact:
WOMEN ARE NOT PAID LESS THAN MEN
THERE IS NO UNFAIR GENDER PAY GAP – (the average is diffirenet for good reasons which are not proof of any gender discrimination at all!)
Because you say it’s true, parroting Fawcett Society’s (and the female-dominated pc BBC’s) spurious and disgustingly false propaganda, doesn’t make it so.
So you argue those nasty men did everything bad in history? OK – sexist mentalist bint theory, but if you believe it, then you must also accept, by the same token, that men did everything GOOD in history: ended slavery, gave everyone the vote, created democracy and humen rights, created modern society and technology, stopped wars, gave all women and men equality under the law.
It is NOT women who have been disadvantaged in history, by the many men and women from the lower classes who were oppressed by the ruling class of men AND WOMEN!
It is you are are the wailing and mewling baby, Sarah, you minging twit. Grow up love, or you’ll forever have a rabbit as a boyfriend.

AngryMale

Britain is a fucked up country without any real manufacturing base- unlike many of our European competitors. 1 million businesses have folded since 2008 and with that a lot of skilled male jobs including those in IT, engineering, finance, construction, trades etc have all been lost. Is it any wonder women in their 20′s earn slightly more? I don’t think so.

james102

Yes but continental Europe has a terminal demographic problem.
Take Germany; by 2050 their population will have fallen by 23 million .The
number of children under 15 is projected at 7.3 million. A third of the
population will be over 65.The other large European countries are the same.

We have created a society with a flaw similar to that of a
species that can’t adapt to a changing environment and will suffer the same
fate.

A political theory based on wishful thinking, in this case
there is no such thing as human nature and proportionate outcomes between
groups is possible, has no long term future.

Jules

@efab82b649e934c5d5cafea91eb03d15:disqus

You can blame Thatcher. She destroyed our manufacturing base and the jobs that were for working class men to earn and provide for their families. Our European neighbours, like Germany tool a different route.

james102

We were doing so well in the 1970s!!

Recovering Leftist

Another observation. Technical jobs in IT are still overwhelmingly filled by males (more so than when I started many decades ago). However the opportunities for UK youngsters have been reduced by outsourcing. That pendulum is swinging the other way now due to many disastrous outcomes – but there is also a big influx of immigrant IT workers on the back of studying for degrees (often one year post graduate) and inter company secondments by large consultancies. I’m not opposed to constructive immigration – but there needs to be balance.

Don’t get me started on the pathetic soul destroying crap that was forced on youngsters in the name of IT education in schools. It is another factor why we have been in danger of falling behind in creating the good quality job opportunities that seem to suit males a bit more than females. The education system is key. Seperate the genders in single sex classes pre 6th form, bring in rigour and technical creativity. Both girls and boys will benefit.

Swissy J

My son and his partner have a year-old son. The apple of his father’s eye. His partner has a great job with a public service employer, and has now gone back to work after generous maternity leave. My son has been laid off from a good assignment – he is a self-employed electrician. So Dad is minding the house and doing the child care. He is the only Dad turning up to the local Music and Movement for Tinies and their Mums/Dads ?

He says the other Mums don’t welcome him. Although he’s happy to be with his much adored son and doesn’t really give a toss. A free spirit.

But maybe society has to change quite a bit more, until it is equally normal for Dad to be the Mother, and Mum to be the wage-earner. What’s the problem ? Isn’t this what feminism was supposed to effect ?

Good, but where are these women exactly? My girlfriends have all earnt a pittance.

Eddie

There is no unfair gender pay gap at all – for the same work someone with the same experience will earn the same, male or female; any other thesis is just a feminist construct, a craving for victimhood to justify sexism against men!
Men are more risk-taking, their innate natures put more emphasis on status, and men dominate the higher IQs, and are typically better at economics, science, technology: there is NO conspiracy against women, and in fact a great many (most, I would say) have it far easier than men.
Very few men live off their partner’s money while doing little part-time jobs and living luxury lifestyles (like the women teachers and lecturers I used to work with). And part-time men earn less ON AVERAGE – and it’s playing with averages in spurious and cooking-da-books way that is the bedrock of victimhood feminism.
Most wealth that women have comes from dead or dispatched men: fathers, ex-husbands, dead husbands.
It’s a vulture culture, and no mistake!
There are poor and disadvantaged women, yes – these are the women who work in the shops, who are the cleaners and cooks and au pairs for all the rich yummy mummys who see themselves of victims of some invented ‘pay gap’. Women are the new exploitative bastards, therefore.
Perhaps if people tried looking at people instead of their gender eh? And repeat: there is NO SUCH THING as any unfair gender pay gap. It’s a myth and is promoted as the truth by those who want it to exist.
It is also true that women get far more out of the welfare state and benefits and healthcare than men, yet pay way less tax! One does not hear that use of averages quite so often eh? (if ever!)

Women seem to think that equality should be achieved, but only in the nicer, cleaner jobs.

It is enough that we remove legal impediments to women. Equality of outcome is not a desirable or likely outcome.

Eddie

100% agreed. And I think we need to raise issues such as the gender tax gap (men pay way more tax than women) and the benefit gap (in the UK< women get way more from the benefit system and health system than men). Yet, there is no debate – just the endless harping on about the 'gender pay gap' which does NOT actually exist – unless you use averages for your pity party specious feminist propaganda. Same job, same experience and qualifications, same salary: the feminists aim is to promote the LIE That that is not the case, that there are women doing jobs the same as men for less money. That is a lie. Never trust a feminist really…
I look forward to feminists demanding the right to shovel shit and sweep streets and receive parity with men in all crappy dangerous jobs; and I am sure they won't mind having their benefits and divorce settlements cut to be in line with men's either, seeing as they're such big fans of equality. Part-time men, especially those in their 50s, earn a lower hourly rate than women – and most part-time women have men's salaries (or ex-husband's money and house) to support them. I know – I used to work with these selfish spoily greedy bints.
Trust men – it is men who are disadvantaged in modern society, with discrimination agaisnt them in the name of equality, and having to compete with those far better off then themselves, most of them women.
If women had to live men's lives, they'd soon crumble. Most women – certainly middle-class women, live easy peasy lives.
Doesn't stop em whingeing though eh?
I know women who live in houses woth £650k which they got from a divorce settlement who never stop moaning about how awful their lives are as poor wickle victim women. Silly bints. Probably just and innate bonding instinct – women like to moan about men together to boost their fragile confidence, eh? Like sheep baaing at the rain…

Eddie

100% agreed. And I think we need to raise issues such as the gender tax gap (men pay way more tax than women) and the benefit gap (in the UK< women get way more from the benefit system and health system than men). Yet, there is no debate – just the endless harping on about the 'gender pay gap' which does NOT actually exist – unless you use averages for your pity party specious feminist propaganda. Same job, same experience and qualifications, same salary: the feminists aim is to promote the LIE That that is not the case, that there are women doing jobs the same as men for less money. That is a lie. Never trust a feminist really…
I look forward to feminists demanding the right to shovel shit and sweep streets and receive parity with men in all crappy dangerous jobs; and I am sure they won't mind having their benefits and divorce settlements cut to be in line with men's either, seeing as they're such big fans of equality. Part-time men, especially those in their 50s, earn a lower hourly rate than women – and most part-time women have men's salaries (or ex-husband's money and house) to support them. I know – I used to work with these selfish spoily greedy bints.
Trust men – it is men who are disadvantaged in modern society, with discrimination agaisnt them in the name of equality, and having to compete with those far better off then themselves, most of them women.
If women had to live men's lives, they'd soon crumble. Most women – certainly middle-class women, live easy peasy lives.
Doesn't stop em whingeing though eh?
I know women who live in houses woth £650k which they got from a divorce settlement who never stop moaning about how awful their lives are as poor wickle victim women. Silly bints. Probably just and innate bonding instinct – women like to moan about men together to boost their fragile confidence, eh? Like sheep baaing at the rain…

Grantbarking

Why are we surprised? Our society has been relentlessly feminised over the last thirty years with women being allowed to present themselves as victims. What will be interesting is how they manage to maintain this victimhood when they are seen to be earning more money. They’ll find a way because it is women’s natural state to try to squeeze as much from men as possible.

they will still find areas where they are persecuted, and duly let us know…

James102

What we need to factor in is the lower working life productivity of women. With more women doctors we will need more doctors to get the same number of working years from them.
Also the feminisation of society is an experiment. No society has ever tried to de-sex their institutions using positive discrimination ,such as our equalities legislation does ,before. It could just end in social unrest as systems suitable for women failed to control the latent violence always present in young men.
Then we have the rise of Islam and the decline of the West as our demographics leads to aging and declining populations.

Daniel Maris

Up late last night? Waity Katie is the Duchess of Cambridge is she not? – the Duchess of Cornwall waited even longer to get her man.

Who are you talking about in all this? Many of our new communities don’t believe a woman should work, full stop – a woman is for breeding. That is also basically the view of the upper middle classes (if you’ve ever seen the mothers waiting outside an independent school).

The idea we have one community is a very old fashioned one, but you and the other Spectator writers seem addicted to it for some reason, despite supporting mass immigration.

http://www.coffeehousewall.co.uk/ Coffeehousewall

Has this author, or Fraser Nelson, taking into account the effects of immigration on this balance? The majority of single, work-seeking immigrants are male, and are competing on cost with British young men, therefore depriving many of them of work. The increasing number of women in work are working in service sectors that are not male dominated, and therefore are not being dominated so quickly by immigrant labour.

Much of the construction sector has been taken over by immigrant labour, therefore depriving British men of work. It is not at all surprising that British men have not seen levels of employment increase, and so British women have had to take part-time work to compensate.

Have British men ‘signed off’ from employment as Fraser puts it? Or have their jobs been taken by immigrant labour who are happy to work for less, live crowded with their countrymen, and send the money back home? I think a lot more analysis needs to be done before this data can be relied on, and various anecdotes about people watching TV when their wives get a bonus are not reliable data, nor do they reflect the real world where most people, male or female, do not get bonuses.

http://twitter.com/SamAmbreen Sam Ambreen

LOL

Recusant

Ah, the eloquence of Southall Black Sisters; always bringing insight, profundity and wisdom to the discussion.

http://twitter.com/andrew_cadman Andrew Cadman

Those of us of a certain age (I am 45) can remember that this was very much all the rage from about 1990 onwards. Then, you couldn’t open a paper without being told about the new female ascendancy – “the Future Is Female” all that.

We were told that women were becoming better business people and were set to dominate all levels of society. Then Fraser himself reported a couple of years ago that, in fact, 90% of the increase in female employment has been in the public sector.

The major problem for men is that the Metropolitan elite of our society is completely feminised, with an emotionally based, narcissistic culture that worships women and homosexuality. Anything still male dominated – for example, the boards of FTSE companies – is regarded as intrinsically wicked. Similarly the male role in society – essentially to protect and provide for the female and her offspring – is at best ignored and at worst held in total contempt.

There is simply no concerted interested in giving you men what they need – stable families with a present father through supporting marriage, or a competitive, masculine culture in education. Indeed, it was noticeable that the proposed Phoenix free school in Oldham that was specifically designed to correct this was rejected by the Department of Education.

Fraser is wrong to say that men and women will lose their hang-ups about these trends – you cannot reverse bacia biological instinct by that much. Instead, prepare for a higher male suicide rate, economic malaise and more social breakdown.

Until the power of the Metropolitan elites and their feminised culture is broken, the future could be bleak for men.

james102

As I wrote below this is an experiment and factors outside
the Western bubble make it unlikely to succeed.

The refusal to accept there is such a thing as human nature
and the fallacy of equal outcomes acting against the need for a meritocracy will
result in the experiment failing.

Nicholas

With the greatest regret I have to concur. The feminisation of our society has been absolutely disastrous and is probably one of the reasons that government has a tendency to treat the adult population like a kindergarten class. There are bad apples but the whole class gets relentlessly punished.

Sarah

Disastrous for who? Perhaps you missed the previous 4000 years of recorded history, you know – the bit when society was masculanised? You know there was that thing about global catasteophe every 50 years or so, millions dead, infanticide, genocide, slavery, world wars, empires, witch burnings, totalitarianism, kids up chimneys, public hangings, women with no rights and bleeding to death from multiple coerced childbirth. But you’re right, patronising people is a real disaster.

Eddie

Oh Sarah…Will you ever get it through your manhating head that it was PEOPLE who suffered in the past – and those who did bad things to them were PEOPLE too, not nasty men (who you seem to contrast with idealised innocent fluffy bunny victim females). People create wars, love – and if (god help us) women were ever in direct charge of the world, I would fully expect 5 days of war every month with armies who are dressed in pink (they’d probably send in the butch battalion, which you’d be a member of Sarah, first, as common fodder).
A world ruled directly by women would be hell: bitchy, nasty, devious – just like how schoolgirls bully others.
The stupidness of our celebrity society is largely due to female influence: TV is female-led and female-aimed.
Society has become feminised – look at the mess of the education system – but women played a huge role in all atrocities of the past. The theory of patriarchy is nonsense, as evidenced by MRI brain scans proving that the differences in male/female brains are innate.
The gender pay gap is a lie anyway: if you play with averages you find a gap, which is justifiable because men on average work harder, longer and at higher levels than women and take more risk.
Needless to say, it is women who get far more benefits and healthcare from our taxes (the majority of which are paid by men). How about mentioning the gender tax gap eh?

James102

The problem is that this is an experiment. We are not talking about 4000 years of history but all known history and every society. The sexes have had defined roles and this seems hard wired just as it is in other mammals.
We now try an experiment in the west which even in demographic terms looks like it will end badly.
This is just another aspect of wishful thinking politics ,like proportionate outcomes between groups. Wanting something to be true does not make it true.

Precisely so.
The unspoken truth of all this is one simple fact: men and women are not ‘equal’ and never can be (speaking very generally, as we must in this debate – exceptions prove the rule, as ever).
That is not to say males and females – ie PEOPLE – should not be treated equally in law (ironically something the feminists argue against! Many want to only send men criminals to prison not women criminals!).
Because of gender brain difference (now shown by MRI scans which did not exist in the 60s and 70s where the nonsense theory of social conditioning being the sole cause of differences in behaviour between girls and boys was touted as the one true faith) men and women will never be ‘equal’ in terms of aptitudes, abilities, talents, earnings, professions, lifestyles, instincts, behaviour. And a good thing too! It is in no way sexist to state these facts: just realistic.
Millions of years of human primate evolution can’t be ignored: men and women are not meant to be the same or equal. MRI imaging has shown that the emotional parts of most women’s brains are never switched off – men’s are; so women tend to be much better at ‘people’ and caring jobs than men, and have the interest and aptitude (no coincidence that lots of gay men are nurses and in caring jobs either, or that they are often on university foreign language courses)
And if we need socalled ‘positive action’ to get more women into certain jobs to created (so-called) ‘gender parity’ and (socalled) ‘equality’, then that must apply to ALL jobs and levels of jobs – from the street cleaners and miners and sewage farm workers, to the crappy manual jobs, and NOT solely the top levels of the professions – though, rather unsurprisingly, women who want to climb to the top levels ot the professions argue that sexism against men (ie positive action to overpomote 4th rate women who can’t make it as men do in a competitive world) is so necessary to create so-called ‘gender equality’.
Talented and able women know this and hate those women who want to be infatilised with positive action and ‘extra help’ – as though they were disabled!

Nicholas

Disastrous for everyone.

And yes, I did miss the 4000 years of history before my birth, as did you I guess, unless you are the reincarnation of some ghastly female Hell demon who has been tormenting mankind for 4,000 years. In your current incarnation you seem to be just a female version of all the worst male hatred and discrimination you rant against. But maybe you are one of the many malevolent souls of your political persuasion (it’s bound to be left wing) who believe in payback rather than reconciliation.

James102

4000? 400,000? 4 million? All primates have sex determined
roles it must predate us as a species. This is just a fad and a fad with a
built in self destruct.

Dimoto

A lot of good points. Add in, that a huge cohort of young males are surly, obsessed with video games, innumerate/ignorant, unkempt, smelly and have zero manners or behavioural standards, and the data is not too surprising. Young women are mostly neat, chatty, and well-turned out, and tend to have the smarts to hide “attitude” and neuroses.

james102

Factors such as the feminisation of education and boys being
reared without either their biological father being present and/or a succession
of step fathers and mixer families almost certainly contributes to this.

The policies are both experimental and seem to contain the
seeds of their own destruction.

http://twitter.com/andrew_cadman Andrew Cadman

Its a known fact that absence of a father leads to the traits you describe in young men, but spurs young women on to be independent as they don’t see men as reliable.

Again, all this has been well-known for 20 years and over but there is absolutely zero political will from the Metropolitan elite to do anything about it.

Eddie

Father absence also causes puberty to start 6months or more earlier in girls, and girls from single parent (usually mother) families are way more likely to get pregnant, become teen mums, and to get divorced.
The biggest problem for these girls is that often, when they have not been brought up aith any male influence, they assume that everyone will behave like a woman – and simply cannot understand the differing behaviour of men (Sarah is an example on these pages). I have seen this time and again in young girls – and usually these girls end up alone becaus ethey simply cannot form healthy relationships, so their children will suffer the same father-shaped hole in their lives.
It is boys however who really suffer in single mother families – as all evidence shows. The probability of anything bad happening (poor school results, bad mental health, bad physical health, criminality, drug abuse etc etc etc) is way higher is boys who have no fathers at home. I do wish people would look at the evidence – instead of bleating on about how a single mother family is as good as a two parent family – because, statistically, it isn’t – not for the children anyway.
The feminists may disagree with my opinion on this, but they are factually wrong.

Eddie

I’d say you need to meet a few more young women Dimoto! They are just as bad as the worst of young men – which is equality of a sort. Hoorah! Getting drunk and slagging it about, mugging people and smashing up bus shelters, and having a bad attitude of demanding respect – same for girls and boys.
The thing is this: women tend to be middling in intelligence and ability; the top 10% of IQ levels is 95% male, after all. But what do you need to get a degree these days? Just plodding, obeying-the-rules, doing what you’re told, pleasing teacher, middling-ness – and that A grade and degree is yours.
Take it from me: the top of all subjects – even female-dominated ones like foreign languages – is dominated by males. The middle is a huge spare type of females – who are middling, average, well-bahaved and utterly uninspiring and lacking in any original thought. That gets you a long way in today’s society – especially working for the state, the BBC et all, but also the corporates.
Not so long ago, teachers were 50/50 male/female. Now only 29% of teachers are male. That has had a devastating effect on boys, as had the fact we have the highest divorce rate in Europe and single-mother families aplenty which are, according to all evidence, very bad for boys.
What amazes me is that boys do so very well, despite the institutionalised misandry of our education system.
Business will always be dominated by men, as will technology – it’s innate brain structure and instinct that leads to aptitude and attitude which makes men dominate those fields (and many 4th rate women get leapfrogged over way better men in some fields too).

Dimoto

Nutty theories aside, we live in a service economy.
Women are just better suited to more jobs these days.
And, as pointed out above, many of our younger men no longer have those traditional masculine virtues.

idris83

Some good points but please don’t conflate homosexuality with femininity. You just have to take a look at more grown-up countries like Germany where technical and manual industries are less plagued by homophobic machismo, and where gay men are less likely to hide in the closet, to realise how sexuality has nothing to do with career choice and that this is simply a pernicious and self-perpetuating British/Anglosphere myth.